Final fall, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a district court preliminary injunction that barred the U.S. Air Pressure from requiring spiritual objectors to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations. As I noted at the time, it appeared that the Air Pressure’s attorneys had not totally thought-about the way it ought to reply to Non secular Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claims on this context.
The Air Pressure has since rescinded the vaccination requirement, and has now requested for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc for the aim of vacating the panel resolution and decrease courtroom injunction. No cube mentioned the Sixth Circuit.
In a brief order issued today in Doster v. Kendall, the Sixth Circuit rejected the petition. It reads:
The courtroom acquired a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The petition didn’t search evaluate of the problems that the panel’s opinion determined. Quite, it sought vacatur of the opinion and of the district courtroom’s preliminary injunctions on the bottom that occasions postdating the opinion have now mooted the enchantment and the preliminary injunctions. The unique panel has reviewed the petition for panel rehearing and has concluded that the district courtroom ought to evaluate this mootness query within the first occasion. It has additionally concluded that, even when the preliminary injunctions had been now moot, that reality wouldn’t present a foundation for the “extraordinary treatment of vacatur” of the panel’s opinion. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). The petition then was circulated to the complete courtroom. Lower than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.
Subsequently, the petition is denied.
Choose Kethledge issued a quick assertion concurring within the denial of en banc evaluate, joined by Judges Thapar, Bush, and Murphy. It reads:
{That a} social gathering chooses to adjust to our resolution is hardly a cause to vacate it. Right here, at Congress’s path, the Air Pressure has rescinded the vaccine mandate at difficulty on this go well with. The Air Pressure — by means of a petition for rehearing en banc — now seeks vacatur of our opinions upholding the district courtroom’s preliminary injunctions. Vacatur of our opinions is just not a “regular impact” of mootness however an “extraordinary” one. U.S. Bancorp M ortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). And the Air Pressure has not even tried to clarify why it’s entitled to vacatur when the putative mootness right here arose from the federal government’s personal actions. See usually id. at 25.
All these motion s, after all, occurred properly after we issued our opinions right here. In the meantime, “[j]udicial precedents are presumptively appropriate and helpful to the authorized group as a complete.” Id. at 26. On this case, our opinions will stand as a warning towards violating the Free Train rights of women and men in uniform — which, by all appearances, is what the Air Pressure did right here.
Choose Moore issued a press release dissenting from the denial of en banc evaluate, joined by Judges Clay and Stranch. It reads:
The difficulty on this case is whether or not the Air Pressure’s administration of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated sure of its servicemembers’ spiritual rights. After a panel of this courtroom affirmed the district courtroom’s judgment preliminarily enjoining the Air Pressure from implementing its vaccine mandate—however earlier than the case was returned to the district courtroom—Congress enacted the James M. Inhofe Nationwide Protection Authorization Act for Fiscal Yr 2023 (“NDAA”), which ordered the Secretary of Protection to rescind the army’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 525, 136 Stat. 2395, 2571–72 (2022). Twelve federal appellate judges on three courts of appeals have unanimously concluded that the NDAA and the army’s implementation of that laws mooted comparable preliminary-injunction appeals. See Roth v. Austin, 62 F.4th 1114, 1119 (eighth Cir. 2023); Dunn v. Austin, No. 22-15286, 2023 WL 2319316, at *1 (ninth Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (order); Quick v. Berger, No. 22-15755, 2023 WL 2258384, at *1 (ninth Cir. Feb. 24, 2023) (order); Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, No. 22-5114, 2023 WL 2482927, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2023) (per curiam). My evaluate of those selections and the file on this case leads me to the identical conclusion. I’d due to this fact grant the petition for rehearing en banc, which might have the conventional impact of vacating the panel’s opinion, and maintain that Congress’s motion mooted the pending appeals of the district courtroom’s preliminary-injunction orders.